CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDY SOFIA
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES
Issue 8
ADVANCED ACADEMIA PROGRAMME
2015–2016
Sofia 2016
The following publication presents part
of the author’s research carried out under
the Advanced Academia Programme
of the Centre for Advanced Study Sofia.
CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDY SOFIA
7B, Stefan Karadja St., Sofia 1000, Bulgaria
phone:+359 2 9803704, fax:+359 2 9803662
cas@cas.bg, www.cas.bg
CAS Working Paper Series No. 8/2016
with the financial support of the
America for Bulgaria Foundation
This publication is available also
in electronic form at www.cas.bg
Copyright © 2016 by the CAS contributors/CAS
Copyright remains with the individual authors/CAS. This publication may be
distributed to other individuals for non-commercial use, provided that the text
and this note remain intact. This publication may not be reprinted or redistributed for commercial use without prior written permission from the author and
CAS. If you have any questions about permissions, please, write to cas@cas.bg.
Preferred Citation: Rakova, Snezhana, Between the Sultan and the Doge: Diplomats and Spies in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent. CAS Working­
Paper Series No. 8/2016: Sofia 2016. Advanced Academia programme,
a project of the Centre for Advanced Study Sofia.
SNEZHANA RAKOVA
BETWEEN THE SULTAN AND THE DOGE:
DIPLOMATS AND SPIES
IN THE TIME OF SULEIMAN THE MAGNIFICENT
This project deals with the times of Suleiman the Magnificent (1522–1566) and
the doge Andrea Gritti (1523–1538). However, the basic problem it focuses on is
information – the information that Venice collected through its diplomatic envoys
in the capital on the Bosporus and which is preserved to this day in the Venetian
archives. Of course, the gathering of information on the Turks, the appearance and
development of the so-called genre “delle cose dei Turchi” certainly did not first
arise at that time. Interest in the subject goes back to Byzantine times and naturally
continued after the conquest of Constantinople. Venice was in a most advantageous situation in this respect, for it had knowledge about the territories and its
population accumulated over centuries, as well as commercial and economic ties
of centuries’ standing with various cities and ports. This knowledge and these skills
were handed down over the years by its officials, merchants and diplomats and
preserved through documents in its archives. Venice played a major role in collecting information and carrying it over from the East to the West. Merchants were
the most active factors in this activity. Subsequently, especially in the 16th century,
these processes achieved a completed form with the development of diplomatic
practices and the functioning of the Venetian system of governance, developed
into numerous offices and chancelleries of the Serenissima. Their most outstanding manifestations were the famous Venetian relazioni – the reports by diplomatic
envoys of the Republic, ceremoniously presented to the Senate. The first preserved
written texts of this kind date back to the late 15th century.
Although here the topic is focused on the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, it
is necessary to trace some of the earlier manifestations and processes of mutual
“communication” between Venice and the Porte. This is necessary because the diplomatic contacts and means of transmitting information about the Ottoman Empire to Venice began as early as the first decades of the 15th century. On the other
hand, seen from the perspective of the Venetian participants in these relations,
the people involved were in some cases members of one and the same Venetian
patrician family, of which several generations pursued the same chosen profession
(trade and politics!).
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
Many researchers, starting from Leopold von Ranke and the great 19th-century
Italian historians, have devoted their efforts to the study of the rich history of Venice. It is well known that the sources and published chronicles preserved in the
Venetian archives are plentiful enough to shed light on all sorts of historical aspects, including the diplomatic connections of the Serenissima with the Ottoman
Empire. Of major importance are the archive documents, and especially the series
of Miscellanea Documenti turchi, which are accessible now on the Internet. They
will be used here in connection with the activity of some of the main figures of the
present study. Apart from the remarkable series of archival documents, we will also
refer to some rare early printed books, as well as a few half-forgotten manuscripts.
The main emphasis of the study, however, will be on the sufficiently well-known
Venetian “chronicles” published long ago. I have aimed at a reading of a rather
voluminous work, the Diaries (I Diarii) of the Venetian historian and secretary of
the Council of the Ten, Marino Sanudo (1466–1535). This outstanding author, over
the course of nearly 40 years, created a collection of 58 volumes, which include
transcripts of whole documents and letters, abridged versions of the same, as well
as his own commentaries and observations on the activity of the Venetian Senate
from 1496 to 1533.1 Here it must be pointed out that Sanudo is not an unknown
author; on the contrary, he is an important source for anyone studying the history
of Venice. Fernand Braudel, for instance, in his book on Philip II and the Mediterranean world, has used the Diaries as a source in order to calculate the speed with
which news and the letters that carried it traveled.2 The Diaries, however, must
be read very attentively – for, after all, these are not the official documents of the
Republic but their copies, summaries, retold and abridged versions (at times exact,
in other cases not). Moreover, these large volumes, which Sanudo wrote over the
course of decades, have a prehistory related to another Venetian author, Domenico
Malipiero (1445–1513) and his Annals.
The basic points on which this study will focus fall during the periods when
diplomatic missions traveled between Venice and Constantinople. Since it
would not be possible to discuss all the missions, only a few of these are selected here. The basic emphasis will be on the consecutive appearance of the
first relazioni (i.e., reports), and then, within the limit of 30 years (two generations), of two series of documents connected with Venetian-Ottoman negotiations
dating from 1503 and 1534. It is well known that initially the Venetian emissaries to
the Ottoman capital reported orally on their missions before the Venetian Senate,
which was, before the Collegio, the organ of Venetian administration dealing with
external affairs, which included the Doge and his counselors and Savi (ministers).
The first preserved relazione dates from 1503 and was written by Andrea Gritti,
who was at that time envoy for the conclusion of a peace treaty in Constantinople. There are no such extant texts dating prior to this. But this assertion may
1
2
Sanudo (1878–1903), vol. I–LVIII. See Sanudo’s other recently published works by Caracciolo
Aricò (1999–2004, 2011).
Бродел (1998), 358–359; more recently on the same subject Palazzo (2011), 39–43.
4
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
be modified, as I will try to demonstrate below. These documents appeared
not only as a result of Venetian diplomatic protocol. Their creation and the
information provided in them may be said to be due to “circles of friends”, to
personal ties and contacts between Venetians and representatives of the Porte:
Andrea Gritti, Hersegzade Ahmed Pasha and the dragoman Ali Bey in the early
16th century and, 30 years latter, between Gritti’s son, Alvise Gritti, the grand vizier
Ibrahim Pasha, and the dragoman Yunus Bey. Here I propose to take a look behind
the official facade of diplomatic negotiations presented in the famous relazioni and
to consider the mission’s “dossier”. This will include the use of certain documents
reflecting the preliminary negotiations, instructions, letters and “secret reports” by
members of the mission, as well as other accompanying documents. In the course
of the study, when the sources permit, we may attempt something in the nature
of a “deconstruction” of the process of creating relazioni, doing this by comparing
different versions (when extant), including printed, manuscript, abridged or complete ones, etc. This will make it possible to ascertain certain details that have so
far remained outside the light of scholarly attention. While acknowledging that the
official report crowns the mission and is its most perfect end product, it remains
true that underlying it there may be contacts, information and certain “friendly”
exchanges, as, for instance, Filippo de Vivo has shown recently in his innovative
book on the paths of information towards Venice.3
New
themes in historiography
The topic of the present study touches upon many scientific fields and directions of
historical research, in which there was recently been a great deal of activity. Among
the most outstanding themes related to the study of Early Modern Times and the
Mediterranean region are those concerning the paths and collection of information, espionage, the history of diplomacy, transcultural cooperation, inter-confessional relations, etc.4 Scholarly interest has focused on the details of diplomatic
relations between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, including espionage, rituals
and ceremonies, as well as the old tradition handed down from the time of Leopold
von Ranke, the famous relazioni.5 Another special field in which significant contributions have been made is that of cultural interaction and the role of mediators
(especially of the dragomans, i.e.translators), as well as certain other, hitherto less
noticeable figures of secretaries, embassy staff, etc.6 We should add to these studies
3
4
5
6
De Vivo (2007), 58–60; See also: De Vivo (2011).
La circulation des nouvelles (1994); See also: Rothman (2009), Rothman (2012); Palazzo (2011);
Ortega (2014); Pedani (2006); Pedani (2009); Pedani (2010), Popović (et al.eds.) (2012), etc.
Gürkan (2012), Gürkan (2013), with cit. lit.; Servantie (2000), De Vivo (2011); Valensi (2005);
Pedani (2013); Krstić (2012).
Rothman (2012); Krstić-Gelder (2015), 9; Pedani (ed.) (2013).
5
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
publications aimed at a new reading of familiar sources or at a systematic study and
publication of documents from the Venetian archives.7
Domenico Malipiero,
his
Annals,
and the beginning of the relazioni
The Venetian senator and provveditore dell’armada, Domenico Malipiero (1455–
1513), in addition to being a remarkably active figure in politics and warfare, left
to posterity the Annals of the period from 1457 to 1500, attributed to his name
(his authorship has recently been seriously questioned).8 In the Annals we find
considerable information on the beginning of diplomacy between Venice and the
Ottoman Empire after the fall of Constantinople. Malipiero himself (or the author
of the Annals) took part in decision making, was present at the debates, and thus
was able to record, though in an abridged form, important information and documents. We may rightly consider his work a predecessor of Sanudo’s Diaries, which
cover the time from 1496 to 1533.
During the time of Mehmed II (1444–1446, 1451–1481), a war took place between the two countries, the so-called “long war” (1463–1479), consisting of
a succession of at times very fierce campaigns following one after the other
in different places, including Morea, the islands, and Dalmatia. The main
event here was the great defeat sustained by Venice with the conquest of the
island of Euboea (Negroponte) in 1470. As might have been expected, the
first people from the Turkish camp to announce the news were merchants.9
First, in connection with the warfare situation, information was sought about
the military forces of the Sultan. After that, attempts at establishing peace were
frequently undertaken by both warring sides. Judging by what “Malipiero” wrote,
this is when diplomatic protocols first began to be written, though in a yet indefinite, unclear form, and when first appeared the elements that would be contained in future relazioni.
It is important to point out that we see attempts being made in the 1470s by
both sides to use as intermediaries persons belonging to the old Balkan aristocracy or connected with the Venetian domains in Dalmatia and on the islands. For instance, the leading actors in the negotiations were Mahmud Pasha
Angelović (Grand Vizier 1456–66, 1472–74); the Albanian aristocrat Alessio
7
8
9
Calia (2012 a, b); Popović (2013); Pedani (1994); Pedani-Fabris (ed.) (1996).
DBI,
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/domenico-malipiero_(Dizionario_Biografico)/>
Malipiero, Domenico.
There were such cases as far back as 1464: Malipiero, 24, 39, 44–7, 49. See also: Fleet (2000); Davis
(1974); Dumerk (1994).
6
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
Span (or Spano) (1442–1495); David Maurogonatos, a prominent merchant
and duke of Crete and a friend of Jakub Pasha, the personal physician of the
Sultan.10 Mara Branković (c.1416–1487), the Sultan’s stepmother and daughter of
the Despot of Serbia George Branković, also took part in the negotiations. According to “Malipiero”, she personally offered her services as intermediary, but other
documents indicate she acted at the instructions of Mehmed II himself.11
In the concluding phase of the negotiations, the well-documented figure
Giovanni Dario (1414–1494) appears; his letters and reports (dispacci) have
been preserved.12 He is notable for several consecutive missions and for their
ultimate success – the signing of a peace treaty, announced in Venice on March
25, 1479, the feast day of Saint Mark. This peace had been long expected by
both sides, since Mehmed was preparing for a new campaign against Italy.13
Giovanni Dario is a very good example of how the first Venetian diplomats appeared: he was a rich merchant from Crete, an official of Venice and a trusted
secretary of the doge; his most remarkable quality was that he spoke Turkish.
That is why he was well received at the Porte and had talks with the pashas.
That was also the time when the first models of cyphered and coded letters appeared. We have no extant official report by him, but the letters he sent over
the many years of his stay in Constantinople (until 1487) speak clearly enough
of his closeness to the Sultan and the viziers.14 A particularly curious point is
that the Sultan’s envoys, starting with Lutfi Bey, who brought the Sultan’s firman to Venice, and then others, resided in his house15. Venice worthily showed
her gratitude to her secretary and assigned to him a yearly rent, allowing him,
exceptionally, to keep the Sultan’s gifts for himself; proof of his affluence is his
palace on the Canale Grande, which exists to this day.16 His name is also linked
to the famous request by Sultan Mehmed for a painter to be sent to him and
the voyage of Gentile Bellini to Constantinople17.
The peace treaty concluded at the end of Mehmed the Conqueror’s reign, after so
many efforts and missions, merits a detailed examination. For the Venetians, it was
important not to allow any more violations of the trade agenda and to have their
commercial privileges, which had been granted them back in 1454 by Mehmed, re-
10
11
12
13
14
Calia (2012), 46–7; Preto (2010), 247.
Malipiero, 67, 81 for 1472; Popović (2013).
Wright (forthcoming).
Calia (2012 – b); Wright-MacKay (2007); Gullino (1996), 72 sqq.
Calò (1992). See Dario’s documents in the archives of Venice: http://nauplion.net/zd.html; as well
as a model of a coded letter from Novermber 2, 1484 from Adrianople http://arielcaliban.org/
VEdispacci.pdf.
On encrypted correspondence: Couto (2007); Del Borgo (2003).
15
Wright-MacKay (2007), 263.
16
Malipiero, 136: 1484 “To Giovanni Dario, secretary, a native of Crete, was given a property in
Noventa, a village 3 miles from Padua, at the value of 1500 ducats, 600 ducats counted in the officio
del sal, for the wedding of his daughter, because the city was indebted to him for concluding peace
with the Turks”.
17
Cevizli (2014), 748.
7
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
stored as soon as possible.18 But this time, their right to trade on the territory of
the Empire was granted in exchange for 10 000 ducats and another 100 000 to
be paid over two years; also stipulated was the condition that the institution of
bailo in Constantinople was to be restored.19 It should be pointed out that Battista
Gritti, brother of Andrea Gritti’s grandfather, was sent as bailo; in addition to being a large-scale merchant, he had experience in military and diplomatic matters.20
There were many pitfalls set in the treaty, connected with problems of boundaries
and especially issues that directly affected the interests of Venetian merchants with
respect to Skutari, Kotor, Kruja and the islands. For example, according to the 1479
peace treaty, a large part of the lands of the Crnojević family in Montenegro was
given to the Sultan. The ruler of these lands, Ivan Crnojević, died in 1490 and they
were inherited by his son John (Zuane Cernovichio, as the Venetians called him),
who married Izabeta Erizo and was accepted as an aristocrat in Venice. This is how
the conflict over the salt mines in Kotor arose, which Zuane took over in 1495; this
issue was the cause of the next Venetian-Turkish war, 1499–1503.
When Bayezid II, Mehmed’s heir, came to power, the privileges of the Venetians had to be confirmed again. This was done through the new capitulations
of 1482, but the situation at the borders was not calm at all.21 As Malipiero
reported in September 1481, Skenderbeg, not without the support of Venice,
crossed from the Apennines into Albania and tried to restore his paternal domain in joint actions with the above-mentioned heir of the Crnojević family,
Zuane Cernovichio22. The Turks also committed violations of the peace, which
is why Bayezid heard out the protests of the bailo Battista Gritti. It is worth
pointing out a new aspect of the situation: for the first time, a personal audience of
the Venetian envoy with the Sultan himself is documented: Antonio Vituri “è stà
bascià la man in pubblico a quell Signor, e ha mangiato con lui”.23 Until this point,
no Venetian emissary had been received personally by the Sultan – the negotiations had been conducted by the pashas.24
At the end of 1492, a sharp turnabout took place in the seemingly good relations
between the Serenissima and the Sultan. Malipiero writes: “On Novermber 19,
1492, the Sultan sent to our people his orders from Adrianopolis that he dismissed
Geronimo Marcello, bailo, and all the other consuls of the other nations, and so it
was. The merchants were told that everything else remained as before. The cause
was that in the month of July some cyphered letters (“lettere in zifra”), signed also
“in zifra”, were intercepted and sent to the Porte; and they suspected the bailo, and
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
See Pedani (2013), 19.
Hanß (2013), Wright - MacKay (2007).
DBI, <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/battista-gritti_(Dizionario_Biografico)/>.
Teunissen (1998); Pedani (2002), № 63 Antonio Vituri 1481; Wright (forthcoming): Proposals to
Bayezid to renew the peace included the condition of reducing by half the sum that had been paid
to his father, and his relinquishing the islands of Zante and Cephalonia.
Malipiero, 132.
Ibid., 133.
Ibid., 119, for 1478 when the secretary Alvise Manenti was sent to Mehmed’s camp at Skutari.
8
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
the cypher was obtained from him and the contents of the letters was found out;
and they did not like that their secrets had been written down, that is why they did
this. And for that reason Domenico Trevisan was sent as ambassador to Constantinople and was well received and dressed in guilt clothes but was not heard out
– the Sultan saying that he had decided there would no longer be a bailo.”25
That moment marked the rising of the star of the next secretary of the Serenissima,
Alvise Sagondino (c. 1450–after 1500), who, as we will see, was the author of the
first relazione. He was the son of the great humanist Nicolò Sagondino, who was
born in Euboea (died 1464) and served as secretary of the Venetian Senate and
later in service to the Pope in Rome, who had a long life full of tragic events.
The son Alvise inherited his father’s function as secretary of the Senate and,
like Dario, also had the great advantage of speaking Turkish. This brought him
great benefits and determined his selection as envoy in 1493, as well as on another important mission in 1496.
In 1495, Venice was able to be the first to learn about the death of Prince Cem, brother of Bayezid, who had been for many years a prisoner of the Pope (the well-known
“Cem case”). The news of his death arrived through Kotor on March 4, and on March
6, the Council “decided to send Alvise Sagondino to announce the death to Bayezid.
And to explain that the revolt organized by the Archbishop of Durazzo, who rallied
30 000 Albanians, was not incited by Venice, but that she was opposed.” This entry is
followed by a detailed retelling of Sagondino’s letter from Constantinople, received
on June 26, 1495, which describes Bayezid’s great joy at learning the news.26 Under
the date November 9, 1495,27 there is a note on Sagondino’s report through Collegio,
which in itself may be considered the first verbally presented relazione:
Alvise Sagondino, secretary from Constantinople, arrived, he reported (“riferisce”) that Sultan Bayezid has 2 200 000 ducats of revenue, and that he expends all on his six sons and six sons-in-law, each of whom has a separate
court. He said he had a countless treasure, which he had inherited from his
father. [He said] he was a calm (“quieto”) man but was pushed to war by his
pashas. And that when they informed him of the victory over the French at
the battle at Taro, he said that the Signoria had probably spent all its bags of
gold on this expedition, and he answered him that it had spent quite a lot,
but it had other resources, which were intact... and that [the Sultan] ordered
that Constantinople be looked over and that artillery be placed on the walls
and along the seacoast, especially at Gallipoli; that he had 200 galleys old and
new, 8 navi, numerous fustas and palanders, and as many horses as he desired.
That he was not a well conditioned man (“male condizionato della persona”),
that his first-born son takes to pleasure, his second amasses money, his third
25
26
27
Ibid, 141–142; Gürkan (2012).
Malipiero, 146–147; about the transmission of important news, see Palazzo (2011), 111 sq.
In Sanudo, in vol. I of his Diaries, is included the relazione of Alvise Sagondino, but from
December 1496. The placement of this note was probably mistaken. See below.
9
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
is devoted to books and weapons, and is his favourite, and it is thought that
he will mount the throne, and that the Signoria is respected by the Turks, but
they nowise want that there be a bailo.28
What “Malipiero” wrote down based on the envoy’s report would essentially be a
model for future relazioni. Moreover, this is the first time that we get information
about the Sultan’s revenue. This would become an obligatory element in future
reports. In “Malipiero” there is also a fourth note, in which he relates Sagondino’s
audience with Bayezid, a note dated July 2, 1496 (this was probably a retelling of a
letter by from Sagondino): the envoy “found him seated on a mastabe, and as soon
as he saw him... wanted to kiss his hand and he did not permit him to. And they
had a lovely dinner and [the Sultan] questioned him about all the states in Italy...”.29
Obviously, Sagondino’s conversations with Bayezid were held in a markedly amicable atmosphere, and the exchange of information went in both directions; we
may assume that the Sultan himself was the one to inform him of the number of
ships and – why not? – of his revenues!
To summarize: In “Malipiero”, we find the first indications of “proto-relazionis”,
as well as information about the first Venetian missions to Mehmed and Bayezid.
We can trace the developing quota of diplomats, which includes proveditors of the
armada, merchants and secretaries. We must give the author his due: it was not
his aim to present the daily work of the Senate, the Council of Ten or the Collegio.
Evidently his aim was to preserve the memory of important events.
MARINO SANUDO AND VENETIAN DIPLOMACY
TO THE SULTAN
FIRST RELAZIONI: ALVISE SAGONDINO
In the first volume of Sanudo’s Diaries, under the date December 2, 149630, is included Sagundino’s relazione, which was examined through Malipiero’s note. But
we are confronted with another problem: the relazione is set down twice: the first
time as a summary, Sumario (col. 397–398), and immediately after, with nearly the
same contents, but now under the rubric “Segue etiam relazione” (col. 398–400).
Although with approximately the same content, it is presented in a different way,
with different amounts indicated for the Sultan’s revenue and the categories of
armed forces, and even with a different age given for the Sultan (56 and 51 years,
28
29
30
Malipiero, 147–8.
Ibid., 146–148, 152. Pedani (2002) indicates three missions of Sagondino according to the archives
– № 72 – commissione from 4 September 1493; № 73 1496 – 30 May 1496, № 74, 3 January 1497.
Sanudo (1878), I: 397–400.
10
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
respectively), with a different spelling of the names, etc. This leads us to the conclusion that Sanudo probably had two different sources; on one hand, it is also possible he had a Sumario of the report and, on the other, that he was writing down
his own notes about what he had heard. But for now we cannot say why the two
texts were not made identical. Among other things, there is a notable difference in
the amounts indicated for revenues and the details reported by Malipiero. Here we
propose a schematic presentation of the information in the two texts:
1. The summary: structure of the text
– brief verbal portrait of the Sultan – aged 56, outward appearance (colour of the
face), character and preferences (taking to revelry but peace-loving).
– three pashas mentioned by name: Daut Pasha, who is an Albanian, Ibrahim Pasha and Ali Pasha
– number of children: 7 sons and 8 daughters, the third son having the greatest
chance of inheriting the throne, and he expects one other child (his wife is pregnant)…
– revenue: (cf Malipiero – 2 200 000!) – 2 400 000 ducats per year, in the following way:
From kharaj [tribute] – 900 000
From a third of the kharaj – 300 000
From all his ports [scalosie] – 500 000
From tax on the rams [castroni] – 400 000
From certain donations – 300 000
He spends all this revenue and has so far withdrawn 3 million from his father’s
deposit, which had been 6 million, according to hearsay.31
Number of sanjakbeys (here referred to as captains): “in Greece he has 28 captains,
and 34 in Anatolia – in all 62, who have under them an army of 32 000, have no
other salary but the dime on the land, and are obliged to serve the master with no
other remuneration”.
And these people are called ... [missing]
Description of the army: 8 000 janissaries; 15 000 coradori [akingi], regular and irregular army, so the total number may reach 100 000.
The fleet – 10 galleys, 50 fustas, and 50 other. Now being built – 2 barzi.
31
İnalcik-Quataert (1996), 55, 78.
11
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
2. The relazione:
It contains more information about the Sultan’s family, the probable heir to the
throne and the unrest in Constantinople. A verbal portrait of the Sultan is included. The name of the Sultan is transcribed in an unusual way - Payseta.
The three pashas, Daud, Ibrahim and Ali, are only mentioned; no additional information is given about them.
The place of residence of the Sultan’s 7 sons is given:
“Item, that he has 7 sons, of whom the third in age hopes to inherit and has the support of all who live in Foja, at a distance of a day and a half from Constantinople,
the first son is in Karaman, the second in Anatolia and the third in Trapezund, the
fifth in Kafa, the sixth in Nicomedia, the seventh in Greece. And that the Sultan is
51 years old.”
“The Sultan’s revenues – are said to be about 3 million ducats, now available are
about 2,5 million. The expenditure equals this amount.”
Naval forces – 250 vessels, land forces 45–50 000 riders, commanded by 60 captains.
The army – sea and land forces. That a son has been born to him these days, but he
does not want this to be known”.
In conclusion, it is said: “Also that he is a great friend of the Signoria but does not
want a bailo that there might not be a spy who would report what is happening
here”.
FIRST RELAZIONI: ANDREA GRITTI AND THE WAR OF 1499–1503
The beginning of the conflict between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, as mentioned above, dates from 1492, when the bailo was expelled for espionage. The actual war began in 1499 with the seizure of Lepanto and the Turkish attack on Friuli.
At that time Andrea Gritti (1455–1538, Doge 1523–1538) was among the most
famous merchants in the Ottoman capital. He was the son of Francesco Gritti (who
had died early) but was raised by his grandfather Triadano Gritti (1391–1474).32
A number of letters sent from Pera by Andrea Gritti are preserved in Sanudo.
They enable us to retrace some important acts he undertook, which were highly
esteemed by the Senate. He supplied wheat from Constantinople to Venice in the
32
DBI, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/triadano-gritti_(Dizionario-Biografico)/; there is a
particularly large number of publications on Gritti, especially as Doge of Venice - http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/andrea-gritti_(Dizionario-Biografico)/ with literature.
12
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
time of the latter’s famine in 1498. He also advocated for the liberation of the Venetian merchants imprisoned in Istanbul, and to this end visited the pashas at least 20
times, as he himself wrote. In the end of 1498, the first ciphered and encrypted letters appear: October 3, 1498, sub enigma, concerning the Turkish armada; October
31, 1498, a letter to the Doge, in which he tells about his audience with Ahmad
Pasha and the Porte and how he had succeeded in paying the debt for Zante; from
the same day, a ciphered letter about trade matters and the armada, decoded and
transmitted by Sanudo; another letter of November 9 from Pera, scritta in parabula; and more letters of December, received as late as March 1499, etc.33
Gritti proves to be the chief informer for Venice as concerns Bayezid’s military
preparations and the shuttle diplomacy of envoys in the Ottoman capital. Of
course, there are many other sources of information besides him. Paolo Preto, in
combining Sanudo’s data with those of the Venetian chancellery, discovers a vast
network of informers that Venice had positioned at all points of the Adriatic and
the Peloponnese.34 Some of the reports, as mentioned, were cyphered or were written in an enigmatic language using commercial terminology.35 The names of some
of Andrea Gritti’s collaborators are indicated, with praise, at the conclusion of his
relation. Especially important was the role of Zacharia di Freschi, secretary of the
Venetian Senate, who held the cypher of correspondence and also took part in several missions to the Porte.36 Gritti himself was accused of espionage after Turks intercepted his letters, and was under threat of death but suffered only imprisonment
thanks to the intercession of Ahmed Pasha. Here a few words should be said about
Gritti’s “friendship” with Herzegzade Ahmed Pasha (1459–1517), documented by
the large correspondence between this Turkish chief, the doge Leonardo Loredan,
and Gritti himself.37 Some of the letters show just what this friendship was “worth”
and the gifts made by the Signoria for the purpose of preserving it.38 The great vizier Ahmed Pasha was actually the brother of Vladislav Herzegović (1427–1489),
and the two were sons of Stepan Vukčić Kosača (1435–1466), the last ruler of Herzegovina. It was in the ties between Venice and the Balkan aristocracy, preserved
from the time before the Ottoman invasion, that Gritti’s friendship with the Turkish pasha was rooted – a pasha who was so lauded in the reports to the Doge and
the Senate.
At the end of the war, after enormous diplomatic efforts, Venice managed to form a
coalition with the Pope and Hungary and even achieved a brief success in conquering the island of Lefkada (Santa Maura).39 Along with this, the exchange of envoys
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Respectively, Sanudo (1878), I: 508, 917; 2, 101, 136, 139–140, 208, 234–5, 292, 504, 544 etc.
Preto (2010), 248.
Preto (2010), 269 note 61 with literature and letters in Sanudo (1879), II.
DBI, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/zaccaria-de-freschi_(Dizionario_Biografico)/
Pedani (1994) ad indicem; Calia (2012 – a), N 82, N 107.
See Gritti’s commissione: Miscellanea Documenti turchi, N. 96a, f. 4–5, 16 Мay 1503. < http://
www.archiviodistatovenezia.it/divenire/document.htm?idUa=37648&idDoc=39680&first=0&la
st=7>
Rakova (2013).
13
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
between the two camps began at that time. Taking part on the Venetian side was
Zacharia di Freschi; on the Turkish, the translator Ali Bey, mentioned above. The
Republic had lost Modon and Koron, two strategic ports at the tip of the Peloponnese, seized during the Sultan’s campaign in August 1500. Freschi took part in
a preliminary series of negotiations in 1502, which were unsuccessful, unlike the
next ones headed by Gritti.
Gritti’s main contribution to the future of Venice was precisely the success of his
1503 mission for concluding peace. The voyage and negotiations in Constantinople
continued from May to December. In fact, Gritti departed from Venice with a draft
peace treaty, together with the Turkish envoy Ali Bey, after the Venetian Senate
and the Doge officially swore and confirmed the conditions of the treaty on May
16, 1503. On the next day, Gritti was given the comissione for his mission to Constantinople. On May 23, Gritti embarked from Venice with two galleys. Traveling
on one of these was Gritti himself, together with his secretary Nicolo Aurelio and
the cogitor Gian Giacommo Caroldo (who would later become a famous author
of chronicles); on the other ship was Ali Bey and his translator Jacopo da Rimano,
who is “30 years old, taken prisoner at Negroponte and knows many languages”.40
Gritti’s concluding report was pronounced before the Doge and the senators on
December 2, 1503.41 There is a preserved copy of the relazione, which represents
an edited version of the text. This copy was circulated outside the secret archive of
the Republic, as the only copy is kept in the Marciana library.42 Compared with the
other examples of diplomatic reports considered above, Gritti’s relation is indeed
an exceptional work of oratory. In it, the future doge demonstrates his knowledge
of politics, diplomacy and negotiation.
Special attention should be devoted to the series of materials related to this mission
and included in volume V of Sanudo, where, for the month of December 1503, a
rather large series of notes appears.43 We find that Sanudo has given a wide summary of the relation, several letters, as well as an account of the course of the mission, written by the secretary (cogitor) of the delegation, Gian Giacomo Caroldo.
Thus we have the unique opportunity of obtaining three viewpoints on the same
event – that of the emissary (Alberi’s relazione), that of his listener, Sanudo, and
that of his collaborator, Caroldo. It should be said at once that the three texts are
very different, both in content and in the information related. For instance: Sanu-
40
41
42
43
Sanudo (1881), V: 26; Text of the treaty – Ibid, 42–47.
Sanudo, V: 448: “Et compito di lezer tal lettere in Pregadi, il Collegio ussìfuora, et sier Andrea
Gritti, venuto orator di Costantinopoli, vestito di scarlato, andò in renga. Ed era hore zercha 24,
et stete 4 hore et più in renga. Il sumario di la sua naratione è questo. Et venuto zò di renga, fo
laudato dal principe, juista il consueto, e comandato credenza di tal relatione”.
Alberi, III/3, 9–43 (Marc. It. VII 882); on the previous edition of Vincenzo Lazzari, Venezia 1844.
Sanudo V: 448–468, respectively: 448–453 – Sumario; 453–4 – brief anonymous presentation
of the Sultan’s army; 454–55 – copies of letters: letter of Bayezid to the Doge, of Oct 6, 1503,
beginning in Latin and continuing in Italian, with a retelling of the contents of the peace treaty,
sultan’s letter to Mehmed Aga, sanjakbey of Mostar, and Scander Pasha, sanjakbey of Bosnia;
455–468 – Caroldo’s “relazione” “Ex Costantinopoli die ultimo Septembris 1503”.
14
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
do’s summary contains many commentaries and details that are absent in the official relazione (for instance, about how Ali Bey stepped down in Gallipoli to receive
gifts from the sanjakbeys); most importantly, the conversations with Ahmed Pasha
Herzegzade are concretely given here, from which we see that the relationship was
quite friendly and well-intentioned, and the exchange of information moved along
wide-open channels. Just as Gritti informs the Turkish pasha about the policy of
France and Spain, so does Ahmed tell him (in August 1503, 8 days after peace is
concluded between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire!) about the conditions of
the treaty. Andrea Gritti’s and Ahmed Pasha’s networks for gathering information
become visible.44 In the “official” relazione, these details are absent; they are left behind the curtain. Only the friendly attitude of Ahmed Pasha towards the Signoria
in Venice is stressed. The Sumario in Sanudo probably not only represents a record
of what was heard when the report was pronounced, but is also based on some
notes, because it contains numbers and has gaps to be filled in later. The summary
gives a description of the situation in Constantinople, the peace negotiations that
were conducted simultaneously in Venice and Hungary (the arrival of the Hungarian envoy at the Porte is mentioned). Also, it gives the rather valuable information
that Bayezid demanded enormous sums from the Venetian merchants: “vol di sier
Marco Orio ducati 100 milia, di sier Vicenzo Pasqualigo ducati 50 milia, di uno
fio di sier Zuan Zantani, Vincenzo, 30 milia, di Batista Polani e dil resto 60 000.”
Sanudo’s summary constantly refers to money, and especially to the costs of the
support of Gritti and his entourage. He had spent 1500 ducats of his own money
in order to support 20 mouths and a guard of 40 people, while the sum allotted by
Venice was only 3 ducats per day.45
As for the description of ceremonies (the reception of the envoy, the visits of the
pashas and the audience given by the Sultan), it can be found mainly in the “official”
relazione. There is a very brief passage, which, it seems to me, has not been paid
sufficient attention. This refers to the concluding audience given to the envoys by
the Sultan Bayezid on July 31, when Gritti sits before the Sultan and Bayezid says
to him, “Speak!” At that moment, the pashas intervene and say that he does not
have a sufficient mastery of Turkish, so the translator Ali Bey begins to translate.46
From this detail, we learn that Gritti was, at least to some extent, familiar with the
Turkish language. In general, the importance of translators (Ali Bey and Giacomo
da Rimano) was stressed well enough and often in the letter written by the ambassador himself to the Serenissima. In addition, Gritti recommends that a translator
be appointed to the bailo’s service. In the concluding part of the relazione and the
Sumario, certain translators are named and praised – the translator Ali Bey, who
has greatly helped, as well as Pantaleo Coresi and Atanasio from Corfu (relazione,
р. 43), the secretary, the cogitor and other local merchants, who helped him resolve
certain problems, as well as the vice-bailo Lunardo Bembo (Summary, 453).
44
45
46
Gürkan (2012), 177–178.
Sanudo, V: 452.
Alberi, 38.
15
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
So what do we have ultimately? Andrea Gritti describes his mission as successful
yet accompanied by incredible difficulties, which he presents in his official version by referring to his numerous disputes with the pashas. In the final account,
however, as Giuseppe Gulino shows, this peace treaty is too severe for Venice. If,
however, we go back to the beginning, and ask ourselves what the reasons were
for this war that had run such a complicated course and had necessitated so many
diplomatic efforts and expenses, we will see Gritti himself giving the answer – it
was all about Zuane Chernovichio – who was first patronized by Venice but later
went over to the Turkish camp.47
After this, Sanudo inserts a very brief, anonymous text: an exposé concerning the
army services, especially those at the Sultan’s court. This text is indicative that,
after 1503, Venice had a sufficiently clear idea about the kinds of Turkish armed
forces, their salaries, the numbers of all military categories – muleteers, cart-drivers, camel-drivers, spahis, etc. This small detail is noteworthy, because not all the
facts about Turkey were known in the early 16th century by Venice. The reports by
envoys and bailos contain the titles and offices - in some cases noted precisely, at
others imprecisely (for instance: bilar bey, sanjak, haznadar bashi, etc.) However, in
this brief excerpt we see both the Turkish names and descriptions of the services.
This may serve as a reference point for later developments, because 30 years later
we will have at our disposal the full, precisely ranked list of officials in the Sultan’s
court and army, given with the respective Turkish terms. For now, here and there
we see glimpses of designations that have become customary, at least in Sanudo’s
vocabulary: kapi bashi, aga of the janissaries, dragoman, etc.
The second level of the diplomatic corps, consisting of the secretaries, is presented
in the “relazione” of Gian Giacomo Caroldo (1480–1539).48 He was secretary to
the Doge, had previously been envoy to Milano (1508), and is a familiar figure. He
is best known as the author of a chronicle on Venice, covering the time since the
foundation until 1382, written in the 1520s but dedicated to the Doge Gritti as late
as 1532. His inclination to describe facts and events is very clearly evident in this
relazione. I will not discuss the latter, though it merits special attention, but will
note that the narrative is given from the viewpoint of a peripheral observer, and
the aim is to describe the opulence of the ceremonies given for the reception of the
mission and the audiences given at the Topkapi palace. The details and the skillful
descriptions are particularly impressive. Sanudo didn’t entitled this text (col. 455–
468), probably in order to demonstrate that this cannot be considered a genuine
relazione since it is written by the cogitor of the mission.
47
48
Gullino (1996), 90; Alberi, 21; Sanudo V: 42–47.
DBI, < http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gian-giacomo-caroldo_(Dizionario_Biografico)>
16
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
THE 1503 PEACE WITH SULTAN BAYEZID
AND THE HUNGARIAN CONNECTION: FELIX PETANČIĆ.
In the course of the war of 1499–1503, the Serenissima eagerly shared information
with the Hungarian king Vladislav II.49 At the end of May 1501, the triple alliance
between Rome, Hungary and Venice was announced, which may be defined as one
of the last crusade campaigns.50 The Pope promised the Hungarians annual aid of
40 000 if they would take part in the war. Venice was to give another 100 000 and to
wage war on sea. Military action did commence: the united forces attacked Santa
Maura/Lefkada on August 30, 1501, one year after the fall of Modon. But Venice
quickly chose to start peace negotiations with Bayezid. As described above, the
preliminary version of the peace treaty was prepared at the end of 1502 in Constantinople, and was then ratified in 1503 in Venice. Hungary also concluded a 7-year
armistice with the Turkish sultan.
It is worth lingering in greater detail on Venice’s desire for a tripartite peace, including with Hungary. As we saw from Andrea Gritti’s mission, first there was a
two-sided agreement between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, but eventually,
despite Bayezid’s resistance, the treaty was signed by Venice and Hungary on one
side and the Turks on the other. A copy of the Hungarian treaty, signed by Vladislav
II, is kept in the Vienna archive.51 Its content is quite interesting. We find that this is
in fact an “open letter” to “all who see it and hear it”. First, it proclaims that a treaty
has been signed in the name of Hungary and all its subordinate princes and kings,
and all the Christian forces, and that the treaty is signed also in the name of the
Serenissima and of all Hungarian/Christian allies for a term of 7 years as of the 20th
day of August, 1503; and that if one of the two rulers (Hungarian or Turkish) were
to die, then the peace would be considered finished. Within a term of one year, all
interested parties were to send “letters and their seals for ratification and recognition” by their envoys to the Turkish emperor himself.
A particularly important role in the diplomatic activity between the rulers of the
Christian coalition was played by the Hungarian envoy of Vladislav II (1490–1516),
the citizen of Dubrovnik Felix Petančić, also known as Felix Ragusinus (or Felix
Petantius) (1455- circa 1517). The zenith of his career was in the late 15th and early
16th century, a time when he was an important confidant of Vladislaus II and the
latter’s envoy to Rhodes, Venice, the court of the Ottoman sultans in Constantinople, and even as far as France. Petančić’s contribution was that, through works
and treatises of various forms, he joined his voice to the chorus of humanists propagandizing anti-Ottoman initiatives. Apart from his other works, which became
49
50
51
Rakova (2013).
Sanudo (1880), ІV: 41–42, 532–33.
Гюзелев (2000), № 12, 187–192.
17
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
popular only after his death, we will here present in particular two manuscripts by
him that have until now remained unknown.
The first manuscript is an exceptionally well-made and illustrated parchment consisting of 4 folios and entitled “Genealogy of the Turkish Sultans”; it is now kept
at the Hungarian National Library.52 Petančić presented it to his ruler in 1502. In
addition to the beautifully painted portraits of sultans, viziers and pashas, the work
contains information on Bayezid’s family (his sons, daughters, and sons-in-law),
as well as on the Sultan’s army and his revenue. These last are given separately for
Rumelia and Anatolia: 1 500 000 and 2 000 000 ducats, respectively. The author
also gives the number of households in the two parts of the Empire: for Rumelia,
the numbers are 80 000 Christian and 50 000 Turkish households, and for Anatolia,
a total of 1 600 000 Christian and Turkish. The Sultan’s treasury revenue is said to
come from taxes; inheritance; taxation on large and small cattle; trade with salt,
copper and other metals; taxation on agricultural produce; customs taxes, etc. The
expenditures of the Empire are chiefly for payment of daily rations and money for
the army, but the author does not indicate the sums. In fact, we are able to identify
the direct source of the information concerning the revenue of the Ottoman Empire: a report, dating from 1496, by Alvise Sagondino, the Venetian envoy to the
Sultan’s court, which is noted in Sanudo’s Diaries. Thus we see the direct connection between the information Venice had and the data provided by the Hungarian
envoy Petančić. He himself was an outstanding polyglot and knew Turkish, among
many other languages. Of course, part of his information was probably gathered
by him personally during his mission to the Porte (1502). However, we know that
before that, in 1501–1502, and again later, in 1504, he was in Venice and spent long
periods of time there. It was there that he was given the information that directly
led to the reports of the Venetian envoy Alvise Sagondino.
The close collaboration in the field of diplomacy and the exchange of information between Felix Petančić and the Venetians becomes obvious in the second
manuscript, probably written by himself, which is preserved in the Library of the
Correr Museum in Venice.53 To my knowledge, it has never been published. The
sign on the folder in which it is kept reads: Commentariolum de Rebus Turcharum
ad Wladislaum regem. The title of the text itself is: Felix Petantius Ragusinus ad
Serenissimum Wladislaum Hungarie et Bohemie regem. Apart from the name of
the author on the first page, there is no signature or date at the end. I will only give
the main rubrics of its contents: a brief history of the Turkish sultans; a description of Bayezid and his family (9 sons and where they rule, 8 daughters and their
husbands); a separate paragraph entitled “On the government of the empire” where
pashas, beylerbeys of Greece (Romania) and Anatolia, sanjakbeys and sees of the
sanjaks, officials in the Sultan’s court, are enumerated in detail, as well as kinds of
52
53
Budapest, National Library, Cod. lat. 378, <http://www.corvina.oszk.hu/corvinas-html/
hub1codlat378.htm>; Necipoglu (2000), 60; Rakova (2013).
Correr, Ms. Cicogna, 894. Description of the manuscript: ff. 1–7, 27 lines on folio, f. 7v – blank,
text in Latin.
18
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
armies, the timarati, numbering 50 000, etc.; a separate paragraph “Thimarci vel
alterius dignitatis nomen et gradum”; and a final one “On the armada of the Turks”,
which enumerates the kinds of ships in the Sultan’s command, 400 in all, as well
as his land armies. The fact that the manuscript, which was probably written in
Venice, was kept there proves several things. First, it points to the collaboration
between Hungary and Venice during the anti-Turkish campaign. Moreover, this
text shows that in Venice, at the beginning of the 16th century, there were already
very precise and detailed data on the structure and governance of the Turkish state.
What he writes is a more detailed supplement to what was already contained in
Sanudo, in the above-mentioned anonymous text of 1503.
I will not linger here in detail on the subsequent missions that Venice sent to the
court of Selim or to his heir, Suleiman the Magnificent, at the start of his rule. All
of them are described in the Diaries of Marino Sanudo, as well as in the collection
of relazioni by Eugenio Alberi.54 In 1533, Sanudo ceased writing his Diaries. In
view of the lack of a similarly valuable compendium of transcripts of official documentation of the Venetian chancellery, we should turn to other sources in order to
continue our study.
Alvise Gritti, Ibrahim Pasha
and
Yonus Bey – 1534.
Our attention will be focused on a Venetian mission dating from 30 years after
Andrea Gritti’s yet still connected with him, who was by that time Doge of Venice,
and with his son, Alvise Gritti (1480–1534). It is well known that during the period
1523–1538, Andrea was Doge of Venice, but his illegitimate son Alvise Gritti was
still living prosperously in Constantinople. He and three of his brothers, Giorgio,
Lorenzo and Gregorio, were born in the Ottoman capital. Alvise was highly educated, having studied at the University of Padua. He was an experienced and rich
merchant in grain, gems and other valuable goods in Constantinople, where he
lived in a luxurious palace surrounded by hundreds of slaves and servants. The
young Gritti enjoyed the friendship both of the grand vizier and the sultan. He
succeeded in reaching the highest levels of Turkish power when he was appointed
governor of Hungary, but he died soon after in Transylvania, in 1534.55
Here we should imagine several of the characters that dominated the political life
of the Ottoman capital in the 1530s. Among the people close to Sultan Suleiman
the Magnificent, who was at the zenith of his power, having reached Vienna and
plundered Buda in 1529, was the first vizier Ibrahim Pasha (1536), born in Parga
54
55
As for example Antonio Giustianian 1513 in Sanudo (1886), XVII: 537–39; Alberi III/3, 45–50.
DBI, <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/alvise-gritti>: Papo (2004–2005); Papo-Nemeth (2001);
Ber­telè (1932); Finlay (2008).
19
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
(a former Venetian dominion), who was a close friend of Alvise Gritti.56 Nearly as
famous is Yunus Bey, a Christian born in Modon and a convert to Islam, who was
a translator for the sultan but also for Alvise Gritti.57
All the high-ranking persons listed here were connected with the mission that embarked from Venice in early 1534, passed through the Balkans from Dubrovnik
to the Turkish capital, and came back by sea in June of that year. With this mission, aimed at preserving peace with Sultan Suleiman, Venice sought to justify its
conduct in an unpleasant naval incident in which the captain of the Turkish fleet
had perished. The mission was successful and the efforts made on the long winter
voyage by sea and land proved worthwhile. It was headed by the ambassador Daniello Ludovisi, whose secretary was Benedetto Ramberti (1503–1547), a cousin
of Ludovisi and, like the latter, a long-standing secretary of the Senate. Ludovisi was an experienced diplomat who had taken part in other missions to the
Porte.
There is ample documentation of this mission, preserved in the Venetian archives and partially published in the 19th century. We have two relazioni: that
by the envoy Ludovisi, long known and published in Alberi, and the text of
Ramberti, who was secretary of the mission. It should be specified that Ramberti had no right to compose relazione (as was the case with Gian Giacomo
Caroldo), and this is why the text he published five years after the voyage was
anonymous.
In connection with the preparation of a Bulgarian translation of the documents of this mission – Daniello de Ludovisi’s official relation and Benedetto
Ramberti’s “unofficial” one – some new facts and new documents were discovered and publicized, which shed light on the ties between the Doge and the
Sultan.58 In view of what Filippo de Vivo has recently written concerning how the
relazioni should be read, we might proceed in several directions: first, considering
how Ramberti’s text was created; second, how it was edited for printing; and third,
how it was disseminated.
Unlike Ludovisi’s relazione, which was pronounced before the Collegio on June
3, 153459, several weeks after their return, but kept closed in the archives, Ramberti’s text was copied, printed and repeatedly reprinted and translated during the
16th century. It is important to point out here that Ludovisi’s relazione was not
mentioned by Sanudo, since his Diaries end in 1533; but in the last volume, LVIII,
the name of Daniello Ludovisi is mentioned four times, as a very active man who
made speeches at the Collegio and presented his opinions on questions concerning
56
57
58
59
Turan (2009); Pedani (2014), 312–313.
Matuz (1975), 42 sq.; Pedani (1994), 27 sqq.; Pedani (ed.) (1994) ad indicem; Krstić (2012),
132–134.
Here I present my part of this study in abridged form. Ракова-Данова (2016), 24–69.
Alberi, III/1, 3–32. See Ракова-Данова (2016), 201–223.
20
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
relations with the Porte.60 The relazione was published by Alberi in a single copy,
which, however, was kept in Florence, in the Magliabecchiana Library, and not in
Venice; this indicates, once again, the great interest shown in this relazione even
outside the authors’ native land. This edition will remain outside our focus, as it
contains the usual elements and all that can be said about it is that it creates the
impression that the Ottoman fleet was weak, as Ludovisi told the Signoria, something that did not correspond to reality. In fact, his informers and Ramberti’s were
the same. Hence, we shall go on to the analysis of the “unachieved” relazione by
Ramberti.
BENEDETTO RAMBERTI AND THE HISTORY
OF HIS MANUSCRIPT
So far there are six known manuscripts of Benedetto Ramberti’s work: two in the
Library of the Correr Museum in Venice (№ 1 and № 2) and single copies in the
Ambrosiana Library in Milan (№ 3), the Library of the city of Pesaro (№ 4) and in
the manuscript collection of the University Library in Syracuse, USA (№ 5, this
manuscript is from the Leopold von Ranke collection and is a late, 17th-century
copy), as well as a copy in the Vatican Library (№ 6).61
Regarding the time these copies were made, several assumptions may be made:
Manuscript № 162 is kept in a folder containing dozens of relazioni by ambassadors
of the 16th century which was owned by Agostino Sagredo (1798–1871), an eminent Italian collector and man of letters. This suggests that it was thought to be a
diplomatic relazione at the time; the sign on the folder cover is: Viaggio et Riti del
stato et Imperiо del Signor Turcho (Voyages and customs of the state and governance of the Sultan). It is written on paper in dark-brown ink, with 25 lines of text
per page, and contains 38 numbered leaves. It has no title or division into parts.
There are marginal notes that point out some more important passages, such as
geographical designations, objects and names. These notes were made in red ink
and only occur in part of the text (f. 16v–21v). There are lacunae in several places.
The dating of the manuscript presents no special difficulty. In the text itself, there
is the date March 29, 1534, when Ramberti visited the Sultan’s arsenal (shipyard)
in Contantinople. Terminus ante quem is the death of Alvise Gritti on September
60
61
62
Sanudo (1903) LVIII: 48, 215, 498, 559.
Cf. 4 manuscripts (one in each of the libraries: Milano, Pesaro, Venice and the Vatican in Rome)
mentioned in Veneri (2010), 417.
Manuscript № 1 from the collection of the Library of Correr Museum, sign. MS PDС 394/IIс,
№ 14, with handwriting from the 16th century. I express my special gratitude to Dr. Marcella
Ferraccioli, who discovered this manuscript and pointed it out to me, as well as to the director of
the Correr Museum Library, Dr. Piero Lucchi.
21
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
29, 1534, and the death of the grand vizier Ibrahim on May 14, 1536, since these
notable persons figure in the text as still living and in positions of honour in Constantinople. It remains a mystery to us why this was not mentioned in the printed
edition of 1539.
The second manuscript, in the Correr Museum Library, has the signature MSC,
LXXVII, 2625, and is a relatively precise copy of the autograph from the second half
of the 16th century. This is also true for the manuscript kept in the Ambrosiana Library in Milan (signature MSC O. 69), which bears the title Viaggio di Benedetto
Ramberti veneto a Cоstаntinopoli del 1533 con una minuta descrizione di quel paese,
governo etc. (Voyage of Benedetto Ramberti, Venetian, to Constantinople in 1533,
with a detailed description of these lands, governance, etc.). The other manuscripts
are not known to me, beyond the information I have about them from the library
catalogues – importantly, they are all marked as “Relazione of Ramberti”. 63The list of
preserved transcripts could probably be continued some day with more copies that
are yet unknown.
Printed
editions
The first printed edition of Ramberti’s text, entitled Libri tre delle cose de’ Turchi
[Three Books on Turkish Matters], came out in Venice in 1539 from the printing
house of Aldo Manuzio. The name of the author is not given. This is a small book of
40 pages, without a preface, and without the name of the publisher indicated. 64After
the title is placed the sign of the Aldo Manuzio publishers – an anchor with a small
dolphin and the letters ALDVS. It was printed by a son of the eminent Venetian
publisher, Paolo Manuzio (1512–1574), whose name occurs frequently among the
correspondents and friends of Ramberti. The son inherited the publishing company in 1533 and undertook the publication, probably editing the text together
with Ramberti himself.65
The second edition is from 1541 and was produced by Bernardino Bindoni (Bernardin Milanese), another Venetian publisher, under the same title: On Turkish
Matters. Three Books... (there follows the exact title of the first edition).66 All we
know about the publisher is that in the 1540s he was actively publishing books on
Turkish themes. There followed another two editions in 1543 and 1545, published
again by an heir of Aldo Manuzio (in these cases, it was Antonio Manuzio), in
which Ramberti’s text was included among other voyages of famous Venetians;
63
64
65
66
See for instance Muir (1983), 221–222, № 344.
Ramberti (1539).
Lowry (1995), 39; Richardson (1994), 107–108.
Ramberti (1541. See also Данова (2010), 160–161.
22
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
again the name of the author is not given in the title.67 Evidently, there was a great
public interest in literature on “Turkish matters”. A little later, after the middle of
the 16th century, another famous Venetian publisher, Francesco Sansovino (1521–
1583), also included Ramberti’s Libri tre in his publications.68
The basic reworking of the manuscript made in the printed editions was its division into three parts, “three books”. The first of these was on the trip to Constantinople, the second was a description of the Sultan’s court and army, and the third
was devoted to the supreme Ottoman statesmen, the Sultan, Ibrahim Pasha and
Alvise Gritti.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Ramberti’s narrative begins with a description of the Venetian mission’s trip
through Dubrovnik and the Balkans to Constantinople. In the printed editions the
description of the Turkish capital is divided into two books: Book One contains the
narrative about Pera, taken to be a separate city, and Book Two begins with a description of Constantinople, its landmarks and the Sultan’s palace in the city. From
here begins a considerable part devoted to the structure of the Ottoman state. Venetians had a great advantage over other foreigners in the Ottoman capital. They
had access to Alvise Gratti, who was an influential person close to the grand vizier
Ibrahim and to Sultan Suleiman himself, and who spoke Turkish and was well informed about the details of Ottoman government.
Now we may turn to a comparison between Ramberti’s manuscript and its printed
edition. There are few additions made, but they are perceptibly different from the
preceding parts, and it is evident how the editor aimed at making the text more
comprehensible and interesting, as well as at abridging certain concrete data, obviously in consideration of censorship requirements. The first addition is related to
the service of the foot couriers (the express messengers), who were 30–40 in number and who “already as children had their spleen removed”. The second addition
is about the position of the dragoman and his salary (according to Ramberti, 500
ducats per year) and is not to be found in Ramberti’s manuscript.
The following element in Book Two, very telling as regards the editing and publishing, is the description of the arsenal. The manuscript gives a description of
Ramberti’s visit to the Sultan’s shipyard, a visit that is precisely dated: “When I entered here, the day was 29 March 1534, there was nothing but 30 ships (maoni)...”,
67
68
Ramberti (1543). The same title figures in the edition of 1545, where Ramberti’s text is on pages
109–143. Данова (2010), 160–167.
See for instance: Sansovino (1567).
23
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
etc. This information was understandably omitted in the printed publication. Also
omitted is the mention of the Venetian working for the sultan, Messer Gianfranco
Giustinian, from whom Ramberti was informed about the sultan’s plans for naval
war.69 In the printed edition these data are substituted by a general phrase about
the Turks’ lack of skill in shipbuilding and, accordingly, the superiority of the Venetian galleys. This claim was not true, for only three years later (in 1537) the Turks
would defeat Venice in a sea battle. Logically, at this point there is mention of the
position of the Turkish “admiral”, the “beylerbey of the sea”, which at that time was
held by the famous corsair Hairedin Bey Barbarossa.
There follows a list of the provinces and their governors. It begins with the European territories and follows with Asia Minor. The beylerbeys of Greece are listed,
along with six beylerbeys in Asia and one in Egypt; after that are noted the residences of the sanjakbeys. In this listing of sanjaks and of the number of timariots,
I find particularly valuable the given numbers of villages and cities: for Europe
68 000 and for Asia Minor 72 000, Turkish and Christian together. It is important
that Ramberti’s information about the administrative districts (sanjaks) in Asia Minor was valued and used subsequently for the making of detailed maps. An example is the map by Giacomo Gastaldi, dating from 1564.70 Book Two concludes with
general calculations of the annual revenues of the sultan, by items. Here, Ramberti
calculates the revenue from the head tax of the non-Muslims, the kharaj, as well
as other taxes in ducats (taxes on livestock, 800 000; on mines, 600 000; revenues
from salt mines, from inheritances, from donations and head tax, etc.) – in all, 1,5
million ducats. In the printed editions, there is an addition indicating that the total
revenue is 15 million ducats, “five million of which are for the treasury and the rest,
for the army”. Such information supplied by Venetian envoys and residents can be
found, as we saw, in earlier Venetian documents as well. Even the first relazioni
note the sultan’s revenues from taxes and duties by provinces: Egypt, Asia Minor
and Rumelia. The voyagers immediately preceding Ludovisi’s mission (and Ramberti’s), Tomaso Contarini (1522) and particularly Tomaso Mocenigo (1530), also
give detailed data about the kinds and number of foot soldier armies, the number
of timariots, the residences of the sanjakbeys, etc.71 Hence, Ramberti continues the
tradition of presenting information about the sultan’s revenue.
Returning to the title page of Libri tre delle cose de’ Turchi, in the Book Three we
should expect that the “way of governance of the state” of the Turks would be presented. Instead, we find in this part several pages on the customs and mores of the
Turks as well as portrait descriptions of Sultan Suleiman and Alvise Gritti; only
afterwards is there a description of the military organization of the Lord (i.e., the
sultan). As might be expected, in the beginning of this last part there is also an
editor’s/author’s introduction. Here, Ramberti himself probably presented his own
69
70
71
For more on this adventurer, see Cozzi (1994), 11.
Brentjes (2013), 138–139, where a comparative table of the designations of sanjaks in Ramberti,
Gastaldi and Ludovisi is given.
Pedani-Fabris (ed.) (1996), respectively 5–32, 35–39, 43–45.
24
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
“philosophical” reflections on the whims of fortune that elevate certain nations
to the height of empire and crush others. His rhetorical style and language is far
more lofty than everyday speech. He gives his thoughts about the grandeur of the
Ottoman Empire, the turnabouts of fate (Fortuna’s wheel), and the rise and fall of
states. This introduction was the product of Ramberti’s Renaissance culture and is
related to similar observations, by other authors, on power and the state. Without
being connected with his celebrated contemporary Machiavelli, and without being
acquainted with The Prince, Ramberti expresses similar views on theoretical questions about the state. We should realize that when the publication was probably
being planned, yet another war between Venice and the Turks was going on, which
ended with the battle of Pesara in 1537. For the time being, there was no sign that
the wheel of Fortuna would stop spinning to the advantage of the Turks. In this
added new introductory excursus, the author demonstrates interest in the mores
and customs of the Turks. We must again admit, regrettably, that Ramberti drew
abundant information from his predecessors. He literally followed the description
of everyday life and prayer practices of the Turks as these were presented by the
Venetian diplomat Pietro Zen in his relazione of 1524.72
The characteristic features of Turks that are stressed in the text are superstition and
belief in rumours; love for luxury, shiny objects and vivid colours; love for horses,
money and slaves. Their prestige and wealth is measured by the number of slaves
they own. This “ethnographic” portion of the text includes a description of the mores of Turks, their religion and way of life – their eating and drinking habits, their
recreations. This was evidently of interest to the reader in that time.
A major section in the this part is the verbal portrait of Sultan Suleiman. We find
this kind of portrait in other relazioni given by Venetian envoys, as we showed with
examples from the time of Bayezid. Moreover, we know that Sultan Suleiman was
an object of special attention on the part of Venetians, who even painted several
portraits of him.73 In this case, the verbal portrait was obviously made from Ramberti’s personal observation. We should admit that it is very detailed and made with
exceptional literary skill. Here is his description: “And here is what the bodily build
of Suleiman is and his mental qualities, insofar as I was able to see the former and
to hear and learn about the latter from the evidence of many people. He is unusually tall, slim, with fine and delicate bones, with an ashen complexion of the face,
swarthy and as if smoked. He has no hair, like all Turks, in order to wear turbans on
their heads. He has a broad forehead, not very prominent. He has large black eyes
and when he moves them he seems rather merciful than cruel. He has an aquiline
nose, rather large compared with the other proportions of his face. He does not
shave his beard, but it is cut short with scissors and those parts we call mustaches
seem long and red in colour. His neck is long and very thin, and the other parts of
72
73
Fulin (1881), 120.
There is a known portrait of Sultan Suleiman by a master from Titian’s workshop; and there are
also engravings by Venetian masters. See Necipoglu (2000).
25
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
his body are disproportionately long, badly tailored and sewn together.” Regarding
the “mental qualities of the sultan”, Ramberti mentions first and foremost his melancholy and deep piety, but also points out other qualities inherent to a good ruler:
mercy, humaneness, modesty and restraint, erudition, as well as some bad aspects
– sloth, sluggishness and lack of desire for military activities.
In the next lines, we witness what is perhaps the greatest editorial intervention
in the whole text of the printed edition. This is a passage of the manuscript text
that was probably written on the spot in Constantinople and was later replaced by
a shorter text in the printed edition. The passage relates almost word for word a
conversation between Ramberti and “a Turk who has lived for a long time among
Christians and who speaks Italian well”. I will take the liberty of surmising who this
informer might have been who was so well acquainted with the highest ranking
persons in the Ottoman state: I believe it was very probably Yunus Bey.
Ramberti has taken the liberty of sharing in his manuscript his conversation with
this Turk, in which the great anxiety in the Ottoman world regarding the excessive
power of the grand vizier Ibrahim and his influence over Suleiman becomes perceptible, as well as the rumours and intrigues that are rife in Constantinople. Here
we are told the story of how Ibrahim reached the height of power. This part of the
manuscript is replaced in the printed version by a much more moderate and sympathetic portrait of Suleiman, in which the editor (Ramberti or Paolo Manuzio?)
has even taken the liberty of emphasizing that the Sultan himself valued much
more highly not the Turkish histories of his own and his predecessors’ military
conquests, but other (meaning the Italian) histories of war and peace, which he
personally owned and which were jealously kept by his secretaries. The printed
edition concludes emotionally with praise for the long duration of the rule of the
Ottoman dynasty and some general inferences about the management of the state.
In Book Three, we see how very closely the narrative comes to the contents of the
diplomatic relazioni. Ramberti explicitly mentions: “I wanted to understand the
genuine causes of these matters”. This indicates with what strong attention, motivation and conviction of the need for his investigations he acted in all directions
– talking to various people, crossing the capital city far and wide. Here there are
also some general reflections on the way of governance of nations subjected by the
Sultan.
Missing in the printed edition is one sentence in the manuscript saying that the
subjected population could have followed its aristocrats and risen in rebellion,
which is why these people were moved away by the sultan. It is mentioned that
there are many taxes, which are oppressive for the subjects. There is also an analysis of the fighting capacity of the army; the author examines the land armies and
the measures taken by the Turks to hold the janissaries in subjection, as well as
the measures taken towards the Christians in the army. A critical note, which can
be found in Daniello Ludovisi as well, refers to the lack of battle formation among
the Turkish armies. Ramberti discovers one other shortcoming that he emphasizes
26
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
with satisfaction: the lack of a sufficient number of foot soldiers for moving the artillery, which is why the Turks were not able to capture “even a moderately fortified
city”. Here are placed some observations and reflections by Ramberti regarding the
janissary corps, which at that time had been reduced from 12 000 to 8 000 people.
After the shipyard has been described (in Book Two), there follows the description of the fleet, this time in connection with the Sultan’s different kinds of armed
forces. Here again, as in Ludovisi’s report, the ability of the Ottomans to build a
fleet are underestimated. We should recall that Ludovisi himself explicitly stresses
the great assistance he received from Ramberti in the preparation of the report.
This part of the text was certainly written (at least in the form of preliminary notes)
in Constantinople, because the person mentioned as holding the position of kapudan pasha is Hairedin Bey Barbarossa, who was raised to that position while the
mission was in Constantinople. Hairedin Bey was the latest favourite of Suleiman;
but unlike the Sultan, he was not so close to the Venetians, and was even hated by
them. He was a personal enemy of Alvise Gritti in the last two years of Gritti’s life.
We recall that at the time of the Ludovisi-Ramberti mission, he was at the summit
of his glory, and Ramberti’s only option was to join in the praise and submissively
flattering descriptions of those who had seen him. At that time, the diplomat of
long standing, vice-bailo Pietro Zen, was no longer in Constantinople, but the bailo
and other officials in the ambassador’s residence were able to tell about current life
and important events connected with the rise of the sultan’s highest ranking official. Moreover, as Ludovisi recounts in his relazione, and as Ramberti also notes,
they both had a personal meeting with him. Indeed, the fate of the Doge’s illegitimate son excited not only the Venetians but, one might say, all the inhabitants of
the Ottoman capital. Alvise Gritti was a wealthy and famous man who evidently
commanded respect. Ramberti joins those authors (Gritti’s secretary Francesco
della Vale, Paolo Giovio, etc.) who have left us descriptions of the rise and fall of
Alvise Gritti. He describes with great sympathy his physical portrait and mental
qualities, leaving his whole work without any concluding words and even refraining from supplementing or changing anything after the death of the Doge’s son.
The open question remains: why were these passages left as they were, given that
great editorial changes had been made in the text? It may be assumed that Ramberti himself did not wish to make changes in this part of his text.
YUNUS BEY AND HIS WORKS
About a century ago, the English Ottoman scholar A. Lybyer discovered that the
source of Ramberti’s information on the services at the Sultan’s court and the administration of the Ottoman Empire was a small treatise probably composed with
27
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
the participation of Alvise Gritti and published in Italian in 1537.74 This edition,
which cannot be found today, was reprinted in Lybyer; that is why it is worth recalling the latter’s reasoning on the appearance of this text. According to Lybyer,
the small brochure has 22 pages and two types of print, different in the size of the
letters. On the title page is marked “reprinted in 1537.” This suggests that an earlier
edition must have existed, probably dating from 1533 and published in Venice. In
more recent times, other historians have likewise supported this opinion.75
There are sufficient data on this Turkish diplomat. Yunus Bey was not a common
person – he had visited Venice as an envoy of the sultan at least five times, in 1519,
1522, 1529–1530, 1532–1533, 1537.76 We know he was well known both in Constantinople and to authorities in Venice, ranging from the Doge, to the senators
and aristocrats, and all the way to the common people and citizens of the Republic,
who remembered him as rather pretentious and vainglorious.
In Sanudo, we find a description dated as early as December 10, 1518, which vividly presents the arrival of Yunus Bey, spahi and slave of the Sultan, as the latter’s
envoy. In October 1518 the bailo Lunardo Bembo wrote from Adrianople to the
Signoria that the sultan was sending a slave of his, called Yunus Agla, spahi (native
of ) Modon, who knows Latin, son of (the deceased) Zorzi Taroniti, with a retinue
of 4 people.77
Yunus Bey was an exceptional case: we may number him among the most famous
Turkish “friends” of Venice, as he had travelled so often between the Porte and
Venice that it is hard to establish the exact number of his missions. According to
the series of Turkish documents in the Venetian archive,78 we find him on a mission from the sultan to the doge at the end of 1529, in connection with the Turkish
campaigns in Hungary. He was sent from Belgrade with a letter from the sultan to
the Doge (№ 250). This happened again in October, 1532 (№ 289), in connection
with the next campaign. His next missions are interesting, as we find they involved
financial operations: again with a letter from Suleiman to the Doge (№ 361), he was
sent on a mission to collect the sum for a credit of nearly 190 000 aspri, taken by a
grain merchant, Pietro Valareso, from Kasim Pasha; we learn that the merchant in
question had also borrowed from Ajas Pasha an even greater sum, nearly 500 000
aspras. A third vizier – Mustafa Pasha – had given goods to the same merchant,
who had restored the sum. We see that three of Suleiman’s viziers had given money
to Valareso and the sultan intervened on their behalf before the doge; the sums
were to be collected by Yunus Bey.
We may suspect there was a single person holding the monopoly on trade
74
75
76
77
78
Lybyer (1913). Yunus Bey’s treatise is on pages 262–275.
Lybyer (1913), 315. Pedani (1994), 148, n. 112. On the other hand Lybyer (1913), 112, n. 29.
Pedani (1994), 144–153 et ad Indicem; Krstić (2012), 132–134.
Sanudo (1889), XXVI: on the arrival and the apparel of Yonus 10 December 1518, 249; letter of the
bailo: 264–65.
Pedani (ed.), 1994.
28
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
o­ perations here. A Venetian merchant Valareso had taken control over the trade
in grain; moreover, the Sultan himself and the Doge of Venice (through two of his
illegitimate sons, Alvise and Giorgio, who lived in Constantinople) intervened in
the trade. Yunus Bey and Giorgio were sent to demand the sum for the grain that
the Turks had supplied to Venice in 1536. The receipt, on the account of Pietro
Valareso, for 2000 ducats has been preserved; it dates from the beginning of 1537,
when Yunus Bey was again in Venice (№ 399).
Especially interesting is the intervention of Yunus Bey in the peace negotiations at
the end of 1539, in the course of the preparation of the content of the peace treaty
and of the capitulation issued by Suleiman for the trade privileges of the Republic.
We find a preserved letter from Yunus Bey himself to Doge Pietro Lando from
December 4, 1539, regarding his participation in the conclusion of peace (№ 423).
This is an exceptionally important document. We learn that Yunus Bey himself
gave 21 000 ducats of his own money so that peace might be concluded, as Sultan
Suleiman demanded 30 000, while Venice evidently found it difficult at the moment to pay the sum. Moreover, Yunus Bey wanted to be paid back only 20 000
within a term of 3 months. Thus, the chief dragoman of the Porte was funding
the peace process. This declaration dates from May 30, 1540, and was given in the
presence of the bailo Giacomo da Canal and the previous bailo Nicolo Giustiniani
and 8 more witnesses. From another Turkish document, we learn that Hairedin
Barbarossa had also lent 5 000 ducats. (№ 424).
The correspondence regarding the peace process ends with a personal letter by
Yunus Bey dating from November 1540, in which he recommends sending a new
bailo and giving expensive clothes as gifts to the viziers (№ 433). The lent money
was repaid within the deadline, in February 1541, when Yunus Bey again signed a
declaration that he had received 20 000 ducats (№ 448). In fact, this document is
signed and stamped with his personal seal. This is the last document in the archives
related to the Turkish translator. Going back to the 1530s, we see Yunus Bey was
serving as chief dragoman at the Porte, and also working for Alvise Gritti, son of
the Doge of Venice. Probably in his own residential palace, Gritti kept a manuscript
similar to the one Yunus Bey printed in 1533, when he visited Venice with a diplomatic mission. The concluding phrase of the treatise supports such an assumption:
“This book is drawn [meaning “copied, translated”] by Yunus Bey, who was a Greek
and is now a Turk and great translator of the Sultan and of Signor Alvise Gritti,
son of the doge of Venice, and it is all true”.79 Hence, two surmises are possible
regarding the way in which the information reached Ramberti. We know that the
mission in question had several meetings with Alvise Gritti in the Turkish capital;
consequently, people taking part in the mission may have had the opportunity of
seeing this manuscript. The other possibility is that Ramberti was familiar with
the text from the printed edition that had appeared shortly before he set out for
Constantinople. After Gritti’s death, this same manuscript (or a copy of it) was re79
Lybyer (1913), 262.
29
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
printed in Venice (1537). Interestingly, another edition dating from the same year
can be found, produced in Milan. It figures in the Catalogue of early printed Italian
editions under the following title: Questo sie vno Libro che fu trovato dapoi la morte
dil signore Aluixe Gritti fiol del principe di Venetia el qual degiara tutto il governo
dil Gran Turcho ... Impresso in Milano: per Francesco Cantalouo & Nocento Cigognera compagno, 1537 adi VIIII del mese de zugno, 1537, 12 р.80 (This is a book that
was found after the death of Signor Alvise Gritti, son of the doge of Venice, which
describes the whole governance of the Great Turk).
Moreover, Yunus Bey in turn published, but under his own name, and in Venice at
that, this same text quite a while after the death of the chief characters – the vizier
Ibrahim, Alvise Gritti, and his father, the Doge of Venice, Andrea Gritti (1538). I
found proof of this in the library of the Querini Stampalia Foundation in Venice,
in whose catalogue is an early printed book with the following title: Opera nova
composta per Jonusbei bassa in lingua greca e tradotta in italiana la quale dechiara
tutto il governo del gran Turcho e tutta la spesa che il gran Turcho ha sotto di lui cosi
in pace come in guerra. Venezia, 1544 (sign. I.G. 2294) (A new work, composed by
Yunus Bey Pasha in the Greek language and translated into Italian, which clarifies
the whole governance of the Great Turk and the expenditure that the Great Turk
has both in peace and in war). Evidently, the brochure authored by Yunus Bey enjoyed great interest on the part of readers and was republished several times during
Ramberti’s lifetime. Thus we find that all the information he gave, surprising in its
precision and details, was literally copied from the manuscript owned by Alvise
Gritti and/or Yunus Bey, or taken from the printed edition of 1533.
As Lybyer showed, nearly the whole of Book Two of Libri tre delle cose de’ Turchi
by Benedetto Ramberti was borrowed from Yunus Bey’s treatise. Indeed, no great
differences may be observed, apart from changes in the order of services and some
small additions, as well as some difference in the numbers of officials and their
salaries; essentially, the information is the same. What Ramberti considered unnecessary and omitted was the concluding part of Yunus Bey’s treatise, in which he
describes the order of the army when the sultan embarks on a campaign. I will adduce some observations regarding a comparison of the two texts, that of Ramberti
and that of the Turkish dragoman. They are very close, in places literally identical,
the only difference being in the placement of certain passages. The dissimilarity is
that Yunus Bey, when he printed his text in 1537, wrote that the grand vizier Ibrahim was already dead. This means that the Turkish dragoman wrote (or edited) his
text in 1537, while Ramberti left his own text unchanged.
80
See < http://edit16.iccu.sbn.it/web_iccu/imain.htm>: Gritti Alvise
30
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
CONCLUSION
Let us return to the preliminary thesis concerning the close ties between Venice
and the Ottoman elite in the time from Bayezid to Suleiman. Dozens of missions
traveled between the doge and the sultan, and dozens of bailos resided in the Ottoman capital. We see the model of the friendly circle of Andrea Gritti, Ahmed Pasha
and the translator Ali Bey in the early 16th century repeated by Gritti’s son Alvise
Gritti, Ibrahim Pasha and the translator Yunus Bey in 1534, with continuations
until 1544 through the activity of the same Yunus Bey. This model would not be
reproduced anymore. One reason for this was that the Gritti family came to an end:
the father doge died in 1538, and the son in 1534. The death of the vizier Ibrahim
came about in 1536. With that, the Venetian dominance in Istanbul seems to have
come to an end. With the change of international policy taking place by the rapprochement between France and Suleiman, we see the entry of other foreigners as
well.81 But until then, the diplomats of the Serenissima had had no rivals.
As mediators in transmitting information about the sultan (his family, his riches),
the Venetian diplomats were rivaled by the Ottoman translators. The role of Yunus
Bey was remarkable: he not only took part in writing the texts that present the
governance, administration and revenue of the sultan, but was the author of a work
written by him, or jointly with Alvise Gritti, which underwent several editions.
This work, in turn, underwent several further editions when it was included by
Ramberti in the Libri tre. Apart form that, there is a rare and valuable early printed
edition of the work, translated into German.82 This shows that not only in Venice
but also in the West in general, information on the Turks met with great interest.
Which explains the dozens of printed editions of Ramberti’s Libri tre delle cose de’
Turchi.
Bibliography
Alberi, Еugenio, Le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato, ser. III, vol. 1–3, Firenze, 1840–
1855. [here after Alberi]
Annali Veneti dall’anno 1457 al 1500 del senatore Domenico Malipiero ordinate e abbreviate del
senatore Francesco Longo con prefazione e annotazioni di Agostino Sagredo aggiuntovi i dispacci al Senato Veneto di Francisco Foscari e di altri oratori all’Imper. Massimiliano I e la storia
81
82
Garnier (2008).
[Ramberti, Benedetto], Beschreibung der Kaiserlichen Statt Constantinopel derselben gegendt,
gelegenheit, Erbaurung und bewonung: der gleichen der Türcken ursprung, anfang jr Regierung
bis auf den yetzt regierenden Solyman, [s.l.] 1543.
31
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
veneta dettata da Daniel Barbaro e completata colla storia segreta di Luigi Borghi dall’anno
1512 al 1515. 1843. [here after Malipiero]
Archivio di stato di Venezia, Miscellanea Documenti Turchi <http://www. archiviodistatovenezia.it/
divenire/collezione.htm?idColl=24121>
Bertelè, Tommaso, Il palazzo degli ambasciatori veneti a Costantinopoli e le sue antiche memorie,
Bologna, 1932.
Brentjes, Sonja, “Giacomo Gastaldi’s Maps of Anatolia: The Evolution of a Shared Venetian-Ottoman Cultural Space?”, In: A. Contadini, C. Norton (eds.). The Renaissance and the Ottoman
World, Ashgate, 2013.
Бродел, Фернан, Средиземно море и Средиземноморският свят по времетео на Филип II,
т. I, София: Абагар, 1998. [Braudel, Fernan, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World
in the Age of Philip II]
Calia, Anna, “Il Liber Graecus dell’Archivio dei Frari di Venezia e la diplomazia veneziano-ottomana
in lingua greca tra XV e XVI secolo, Byzantion, 82, 2012, 17–55.
Calia, Anna, “The Venetian-Ottoman Peace of 1479 in the Light of Documents from the Venice State
Archive”, In: Popović, M., I. M. Damian et al., eds. Italy and Europe’s Eastern Border (1204–
1669), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012, 45–59.
Calò, Giuseppe (ed.), 22 Dispacci da Costantinopoli al Doge Giovanni Mocenigo, Venеzia: Corbo
e Fiore, 1992.
Caracciolo Aricò, Angela, (ed.) Marin Sanudo il Giovane, Le vite dei dogi (1423–1474), t. I-II,
Venezia: La Malcontenta, 1999–2004.
Caracciolo Aricò, Angela, (ed.) Marin Sanudo il Giovane, De origine, situ et magistratibus urbis
Venetae ovvero La città di Venetia (1493–1530), Venezia: Centro Studi Medioevali e Rinascimentali “E. A. Cicogna”, 2011.
Censimento nazionale delle edizioni italiani del XVI secolo, <http://edit16.iccu.sbn.it>
Cevisli, Аntonia, “Bellini, bronze and bombards: Sultan Mehmed II’s requests reconsidered”, Renaissance Studies, vol. 28, issue 5, 2014, 748–765.
Couto, Dejanirah, “Spying in the Ottoman Empire: sixteenth-century encrypted correspondence”, In:
R. Muchembled, W. Monter, eds., Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, Volume 3.
F. Bethencourt, F. Egmond, eds. Correspondence and Cultural Exchange in Europe, 1400–
1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 274–312.
Cozzi, Gaetano, “Venezia dal Rinascito all’Età barocca”, In: Storia di Venezia, vol. VI. Dal Rinascito
al Barocco, Roma: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1994, 3–125.
Dal Borgo, Michela (ed.) Archivio di stato di Venezia, Convegno “Matematica e cultura 2003”. “La
Serenissima e i linguaggi cifrati: aspetti legislativi, risvolti diplomatici, eminenti zifristi”,
esposizione documentaria a cura di Michela Dal Borgo. Venezia 2003.
Данова, Пенка, България и българите в италианската географска книжнина (XIV-XVI
век), София: Парадигма, 2010. [Danova, Penka, Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in the Italian
geographical Literature]
Davis, James, “Shipping and Spying in the Early Career of a Venetian Doge, 1496–1502”, Studi Veneziani, 16, 1974, 97–108.
Dizionario biografico degli italiani online [here after DBI] <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/
Dizionario_Biografico/>
De Vivo, Filippo, Information and Communication in Venice. Rethinking Early Modern Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
De Vivo, Filippo, “How to read Venetian Relazioni?”, Renaissance and Reformation/ Renaissance et
Réforme, 34, Special Issue, Th. Cohen and G. Warkentin, eds., 2011, 25–59.
Doumerk, Bernard, “Par Dieu ecrivez plus souvent! La lettre d’affaires a la fin du Moyen age”, In: La
circulation des nouvelles, 99–109.
Dursteler, Eric, Venetians in Constantinople. Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Mo-
32
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
dern Mediterranean, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Dursteler, Eric, “The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and Career in Venice‘s Early Modern Diplomatic
Corps”, Mediterranean Historical Review, vol. 16, Issue 2, 2001, 1–25.
Finlay, Robert, “I’m the servant of the Turkish Sultan”: Venice, the Ottoman Empire and Christendom
1523–1534, In: Idem, Venice Besieged. Politics and Diplomacy in the Italian Wars 1494–
1534, Ashgate Variorum, 2008, 1–45.
Fleet, Kate, “Turks, Italians and Intelligence in the 14th and 15th Centuries”. In: Ç. Balim-Harding, C.
Imber, eds., The Balance of Truth: Essays in honour of Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Istanbul:
Isis, 2000, 99–112.
Fulin, Rinaldo, “Itinerario di Pietro Zeno, oratore a Соstantinopoli nel 1523 compendiato da Marino
Sanuto”, Archivio Veneto, XII, Venezia, 1881, 104–136.
Garnier, Edith, L’alliance impie. François Ier et Soliman le Magnifique contre Charles Quint
(1529–1547), Paris: Editions du Félin, 2008
Gullino, Giuseppe, «Le frontiere navali», In: A. Tenenti, U. Tucci (eds.) Storia di Venezia, vol. IV. Il
Rinascimento. Politica e cultura, Roma: Istituto dells Enciclopedia Italiana, 1996, 13–111.
Gürkan, Emrah Safa, Espionage in the 16th Century Mediterranean: Secret Diplomacy, Mediterranean Go-Betweens and the Ottoman Habsburg Rivalry, PhD Dissertation, Georgetown
University, Washington DC, 2012.
Gürkan, Emrah Safa, “Fonds for the Sultan: How to Use Venetian Sources for Studying Ottoman History”, News on Rialto 32 (2013), 22–28
Гюзелев, Васил, Извори за средновековната история на България (VІІ-ХV в.) в австрийските ръкописни сбирки и архиви, т. ІІ, (Архивите говорят 9), София, 2000, № 121,
187–192. [Gyuzelev, Vasil, Sources for the Mediaeval History of Bulgaria (7th – 15th C.) in Austrian manuscript collections and archives, vol. II]
Hanß, Stefan, “Baili e ambaciatori”, In: Maria P. Pedani (ed.): Il Palazzo di Venezia a Istanbul e i suoi
antichi abitanti: Venezia: Edizione Ca’ Foscari, 2013, 35–52.
İnalcık, Halil, Donald Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman
Empire, 1300–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1994, repr. 1996.
Krstić, Tijana “Of Translation and Empire: Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Imperial Interpreters as Renaissance Go-Betweens”, In: C. Woodhead (ed.), The Ottoman World, London & New York:
Routledge, 2012, 130–142.
Krstić, Tijana, Maartje van Gelder, “Introduction: Cross Confessional Diplomacy and Diplomatic
Intermediaries in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Journal of Early Modern History (special issue) 19, 2–3, 2015, 93–105; <https://www.academia.edu/12232513/ ntroduction CrossConfessional_Diplomacy_and_Diplomatic_Intermediaries _in_the_Early_Modern_Mediterranean:>
La circulation des nouvelles au Moyen Âge, XXIVe congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes
de l‘enseignement supérieur public, Avignon, juin 1993 (Rome: Ecole française de Rome;
Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1994 [Collection de l‘Ecole française de Rome 190; Série
Histoire ancienne et médiévale, 29]).
Lowry, Martin, Facing the Responsibility of Paolo Manutio (University of California, Los Angelis
Library. Dept. of Special Collections, 8). Los Angelis, 1995.
Lybyer, Albert Howe, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913.
Matuz, Josef, “Die Pfortendolmetscher zur Herrschaftszeit Süleymans des Prächtigen, Südostforschungen, 45, 1975, 26–60.
Muir, Edward, The Leopold von Ranke Manuscript Collection of Syracuse University Library.
Syracuse-New York, 1983.
Necipoglu, Gürlu, “Word and Image: The serial portraits of Ottoman sultans in comparative Perspective”, In: The Sultan’s Portrait. Picturing the House of Osman, Istanbul, 2000, 22–61,
33
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
Nemeth, Gizella, Adrianо Papo, “Rinnegati, veri e presunti, alla corte di Solimano il Magnifico”, Nuova Corvina, N 6, 2002, 99–109.
Ortega, Stephen, Negotiating Transcultural Relations in the Early Modern Mediterranean. Ottoman-Venetian Encounters, Ashgate, 2014.
Palazzo, Chiara, Nuove d’Europa e di Levante. Il network veneziano dell’informazione agli inizi
dell’Età Moderna (1490–1520), PhD, Università Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2011.
Papo, Adriana, “Ludovico Gritti e i Principi romeni”, Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno a Venezia,
2004–2005, 353–362.
Papo, Adriana, G. Nemeth, “Ludovico Gritti, partner commerciale e informatore politico-militare
della Repubblica di Venezia”, Studi Veneziani, XLI, 2001, 217–245.
Pedani, Maria Pia, In nome del Gran Signore. Inviati ottomani a Venezia dalla caduta di Costantinopoli alla guerra di Candia, Venezia: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, 1994.
Pedani, Maria Pia (ed.), I “Documenti Turchi” dell’Archivio di stato di Venezia, Pubblicazioni degli
Archivi di stato. Strumenti CXXII, Roma: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambietali, 1994.
Pedani-Fabris, Maria Pia (ed.), Relazioni di ambasciatori veneti al Senato, vol. XIV, Relazioni inedite. Costantinopoli (1508–1789), Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo Aldo Ausilio editore, 1996.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “Elenco degli inviati diplomatici venezani presso i sovrani ottomani”, Electronic
Journal of Oriental Studies, 5/4, 2002, 1–54.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “Il cerimoniale di corte ottomano. Il ricevimento degli ambasciatori stranieri (secoli XVI-XVIII)”, In: E. Concina (ed.), Venezia e Istanbul. Incontri, confronti e scambi, Udine,
Forum, 2006, 23–29.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “The Sultan and the Venetian Bailo. Ceremonial Diplomatic Protocol in Istanbul”,
In: R. Kauz et al. (eds.), Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im Mittleren Osten in
der Frühen Neuzeit, Wien: OAW, 2009, 287–299.
Pedani, Maria Pia, Venezia porta d’Oriente, Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “The Sultan and the Venetian Bailo: Ceremonial Diplomatic protocol in Istanbul”.
In: R. Kauz, G. Rota, J. P. Niederkorn eds., Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im
Mittleren Osten in der frühen Neuzeit, Wien: Jan Paul Niederkorn, OAW, 2009, 287–299.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “Il silenzio del sultano”, In: A. Ghersetti (ed.), Il potere della parola, la parola
del potere, Tra Europa e mondo arabo-ottomano, tra Medioevo ed Età Moderna, Venezia:
Filippi, 2010, 99–112.
Pedani, Maria Pia (ed.), Il Palazzo di Venezia a Istanbul e i suoi antichi abitanti, Venezia: Edizione
Ca’ Foscari, 2013.
Pedani, Maria Pia, “Una piccola Venezia”, In: M. Pedani (ed.), Il Palazzo di Venezia a Istanbul e i
suoi antichi abitanti, Venezia: Edizione Ca’ Foscari, 2013, 19–34.
Pedani, Мaria Pia, “Venetian Slaves in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period”, In: S. Hanß, J.
Schiel eds., Mediterranean Slavery Revisited (500–1800). Neue Perspektiven auf Mediterrane Sklaverei (500–1800), Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2014, 309–324.
Popović, Mihajlo (et al., eds.), Italy and Europe’s Eastern Border (1204–1669), Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 2012, 45–59.
Popović, Mihajlo, “Shedding New Light on the Ties of Mara Branković to the Holy Mountain of Athos
and the Translation of Relics”, 6th International Hilandar Conference, Ohio State University,
19–21 July 2013 < https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/ handle/1811/58437/HIL_PopovicConf2013.pdf? sequence=1>
Preto, Paolo, I servizi segreti di Venezia. Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima, Milano: Il Saggiatore Tascabili, 2010.
Richardson, Brian, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy. The Editor and the vernacular Text. 1470–
1600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Rakova, Snezhana, The Last Crusaders: Felix Petancic and the Unfulfilled Crusade of 1502, In: “The
Fairest Meadows in the World: Crusades and Crusaders in the Balkans”, International
34
CAS WORKING PAPER SERIES 8
Conference, Veliko Tarnovo, 2013 (forthcoming) < https://www.academia. edu/14734595/>
Ракова, Снежана, Пенка Данова, Бенедето Рамберти и Даниело Лудовизи. Двама венециански пратеници в Константинопол през 1534 година, Пловдив: Фондация “Българско историческо наследство”, 2016. [Benedetto Ramberti and Daniello Ludovisi: two Venetian Envoys in Constantinople in 1534, Plovdiv, 2016]
[Ramberti, Benedetto], Libri tre delle cose de’ Turchi. Nel primo si descriue il uiaggio da Venetia а
Costantinopoli, con gli nomi de luoghi antichi & moderni. Nel secondo la Porta, cioe la corte
del soltan Soleymano, signor de turchi. Nel terzo et vltimo il modo del reggere il stato et imperio
suo. In Vinegia: in casa de’ figliuoli di Aldo, 1539, 40 р.
[Ramberti, Benedetto], Delle cose de Turchi. Libri tre. Delle quali si descriue nel primo il viaggio da
Venetia а Costantinopoli, con gli nomi de luoghi antichi et moderni. Nel secondo la Porta, cioe
lacorte [sic !] del soltan Soleymano, signor de turchi. Nel terzo et vltimo il modo del reggere il
stato et imperio suo. In Vinegia: in casa di maestro Bernardin milanese, 1541, 37 р.
[Ramberti, Benedetto], Beschreibung der Kaiserlichen Statt Constantinopel derselben gegendt,
gelegenheit, Erbaurung und bewonung: der gleichen der Türcken ursprung, anfang jr Regierung … bis auf den yetzt regierenden Solyman, [s.l.] 1543.
[Ramberti, Benedetto], Viaggi fatti da Vinetia, alla Tana, in Persia, in India, et in Costantinopoli:
con la descrittione particolare di cittа, luoghi, siti, costumi, et della porta del gran Turco: et di
tutte le intrate, spese, et modo di gouerno suo, et della ultima impresa contra Portoghesi. In
Vinegia [eredi di Aldo Manuzio il vecchio], 1543, 111–143.
Rothman, Natalie, “Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries & crossings in the Early Modern Mediterranean”, Comparative Studies in Society & History, vol. 51, N 4, 2009, 771–800.
Rothman, Natalie, Brokering empire. Trans-imperial subjects between Venice and Istanbul, Ithaca
– London, Cornell University Press, 2012.
Sansovino, Francesco, Historia uniuersale dell’origine et imperio de Turchi; raccolta da m. Francesco Sansouino. Nella quale si contengono la origine, le leggi, l’usanze, i costumi, così religiosi
come mondani de Turchi ... Con le vite di tutti i principi di casa Othomana. In Vinegia: appresso
Stefano Zazzara, 1567.
Sanudo, Marino, I Diarii, Venezia: Deputazione di storia patria, 1879–1903, vol. I-LVIII.
Servantie, Alain, „Charles Quint aux yeux des ottomans”, 2000, 1–23 <https://www.academia.
edu/1771063/>
Theunissen, Hans, “Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics: The Ahd-Names. The Historical Background and
the Development of a Category of Political-Commercial Instruments Together with an Annotated Edition of a Corpus of Relevant Documents.”, Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies, I, N
2, 1998, 1–698. <http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ ejos/EJOS-I.2.html.>
Turan, Ebru, “The Marriage of Ibrahim Pasha (ca.1495–1536). The rise of Sultan Suleyman’s favorite to the grand viezierate in the politics of the elites in the early sixteenth-century Ottoman
Empire”, Turcica, 41, 2009, 3–36.
Valensi, Lucette, Venise et la Sublime Porte. La naissance du déspote, Paris, 2005.
Veneri, Toni, Geografia di stato. Il viaggio rinascimentale da Venezia a Costantinopoli fra letteratura e cartografia. Dottorato. Università di Trieste, 2010, < http://www. openstarts.units.it/
dspace/bitstream /10077/4590/1/tesi dottorato-articolo principale.pdf)>
Yunus bei, Opera nova composta per Ionus bei, Venezia, 1544. [Opera nova composta per Jonusbei
bassa in lingua greca e tradotta in italiana la quale dechiara tutto il governo del gran Turcho e tutta la spesa che il gran Turcho ha sotto di lui cosi in pace come in guerra.]
Wright, Diana „To temporize with dexterity, waiting for the benefit of time“: Four Letters from Giovanni
Dario at the Court of Beyazid II (forthcoming) < https://www. academia.edu/838083/>
Wright, Diana, Pierre A. MacKay, “When the Serenissima and the Gran Turco made Love: the Peace
Treaty of 1478”, Studi Veneziani, LIII, 2007, 261–277.
35